Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

What's y'all's opinion on NYP?

As in the New York Post?

As I understand it, the New York papers are known for being hyper-aggressive. A bit like the English tabloids, but less celebrity nonsense and rumourmongering. Focused on making headlines that sell, I suppose you could call it?

[Neonivek]

After hearing a female Trump supporter say to a dutch reporter, when asked why Trump's remark about groping women did not change her mind about voting Trump "it just shows how much he loves women. He really loves women", I do wonder. Would it be legally okay to grope this woman, since she publicly declared she consideres it an act of affection? Or would she still be protected under laws considering those mentally unfit to represent themselves?

Here is kind of the important thing woman who I don't know. It is not enough that he "loves" women, in the same way that one might love a cat.

He needs to 'respect' women. When he does these things he is showing that he has no respect for them as individuals.

[Sergarr]

After hearing a female Trump supporter say to a dutch reporter, when asked why Trump's remark about groping women did not change her mind about voting Trump "it just shows how much he loves women. He really loves women", I do wonder. Would it be legally okay to grope this woman, since she publicly declared she consideres it an act of affection? Or would she still be protected under laws considering those mentally unfit to represent themselves?

Here is kind of the important thing woman who I don't know. It is not enough that he "loves" women, in the same way that one might love a cat.

He needs to 'respect' women. When he does these things he is showing that he has no respect for them as individuals.

These kind of people (i.e. Trump supporters) sometimes complain that "consent is the only thing that matters", so I don't think they'll understand something even more complicated, like respect.

[birdy51]

It's weird to hear people turning early voting into a partisan issue. I fear that due to some of the numbers mu party is going to go"lol, nope" and start rolling back on the ability for people to vote on anything other that the day of.

I really hope that level of bullshit never gets the wings to fly.

[Lich180]

Long time since I've posted here, but I've been lurking a lot lately.

I've seen a lot more people lately supporting Gary Johnson, which is surprising. As remote his odds actually are, it will be interesting to see how he changes the election.

I don't trust any news source for information, because they are all biased in some way. I try to read and catch up on what I can, form my opinion on each candidate based on their actual performance and who they are as a person.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either Hillary or Trump. The thought of either of them as president horrifies me. I believe the reasons why have been discussed six feet under on this thread alone, so I don't think I need to list reasons.

The only person I can actually have faith in is Gary Johnson. He's a decent guy, did a great job as governor of New Mexico, and really seems to form his opinions in a way that I support.

Anyways, I'm gonna stay off social media / the internet as much as I can, because I'm really tired of this whole election cycle.

[smirk]

I really hope that level of bullshit never gets the wings to fly.

It might well, unfortunately, considering that they've already been pushing back on early voting in swing states for some years now (NC and Ohio come to mind). Granted that eliminating early voting entirely is an order of magnitude worse than just reducing it, so I doubt it'd go anywhere. But some state somewhere may well try.

-----

At long last, it's the day of, everyone! ULTIMA DEMOCRATIA! Today is the day the world ends.

Spoiler: PREPARE YOUR CATS (click to show/hide)

[penguinofhonor]

Do you have a source showing that Veritas was right about ACORN? Because I can't find anything agreeing with that.

[Neonivek]

Ok, I am collecting a lot of "The election is rigged" evidence.

But something stumps me... Isn't the elections more rigged in Trump's favor?

That is kind of what is confusing me right now.

[Folly]

Well, he tried to warn us that he was rigging the election. We didn't listen.

[Frumple]

Ok, I am collecting a lot of "The election is rigged" evidence.

But something stumps me... Isn't the elections more rigged in Trump's favor?

That is kind of what is confusing me right now.

Well, yes. Yes, it is.

Thing is, the point of the rigged rhetoric isn't to actually point out malfeasance in the voting process (the GOP doesn't really give a shit about that, as well evidenced by the fact they're the current major source of it), it's to discredit the legitimacy of a GOP loss. Even if (noted, widespread) voter suppression wasn't doing (massively) more for the GOP than the functionally nonexistent voter fraud is for the dems, the message would still be the same, because the message has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with (false) perception.

Trump's got a history of doing that in the face of a loss, really. Only difference now is there's a lot of people with very little interest in veracity willing to buy the deflection riddled bullshit.

And @poh, I'd be interested as well. ACORN's probably the earliest notable example of o'keefe's bullshit, and everything except the court of public opinion (that made the mistake of treating his video as anything even remotely approaching true) found pretty much nothing. The videos themselves were found to be edited to the point of functionally being outright fabrication (after o'keefe released the unedited source in exchange for immunity to criminal prosecution), and every investigation vis a vis criminal or regulation violations of the organization found more or less sod all.

[Codician]

There's not really much point in voting even if you are American, the polls are completely in favour of Hillary and apparently the lines in front of the voting stations are full of Hillary supporters.

[Flying Dice]

What's y'all's opinion on NYP?

As in the New York Post?

As I understand it, the New York papers are known for being hyper-aggressive. A bit like the English tabloids, but less celebrity nonsense and rumourmongering. Focused on making headlines that sell, I suppose you could call it?

NYT and WP are the papers, NYP and WT are the tabloids.

[Frumple]

There's not really much point in voting even if you are American, the polls are completely in favour of Hillary and apparently the lines in front of the voting stations are full of Hillary supporters.

More on those ballots than the POTUS race, and margins send a message regardless. There's pretty much always a point for americans to get out and vote, regardless of what the polls say.

[birdy51]

There's not really much point in voting even if you are American, the polls are completely in favour of Hillary and apparently the lines in front of the voting stations are full of Hillary supporters.

From what I've heard from Fox, everyone I know is voting Trump. Literally, everyone.

[Sergarr]

And now time for something completely different: Remember USS Zumwalt? The one with the futuristic long-range gun systems, that got showcased in half of Hollywood movies? Yeah, the only projectile that was being developed for them just got canned by Congress due to exorbitantly high costs ($ 800 000 per shell?!) It seems that it has fallen victim to a vicious cycle "reduce quantity of stuff => higher cost per unit => justification for even further reduction in quantity", due to a drastic reduction in number of Zumwalts planned (from 28 to 3).

So now the most futuristic destroyer of USA will have no ammunition for its main weapon.

Has the sequestration gone too far?